Thursday, July 10, 2014

Why so much cynicism?

An Ethical Musings' reader recently inquired: Why do
Americans find it so difficult to have faith in the foundations of their
community life, locally and nationally? Since 1960, perhaps even earlier,
Americans increasingly regard the foundations of community life – both its
values and institutions – with doubt and cynicism. Why is that?

First, people now have more awareness of one another's
failings and the fallibility of institutions. Some of this awareness is attributable
to reporters and others in the public square who have found that often the most
effective way to compete for the public's attention is to disclose the juicy
dirt. In the absence of hard evidence, smoke, allegedly indicating the presence
of evil doing, suffices. The unending 24/7 news cycle has accelerated that
competition as has a growing preference for and dependence upon the internet.
At some point, this awareness will plateau – people are not entirely fallible.

Second, people are now less connected with one another. For
several reasons community is waning, as Robert Putnam meticulously document in his
book, Bowling Alone. In the early
part of the twentieth century, an evening's entertainment often consisted of
spending time with family or friends. In the midst of playing games,
participating in civic organizations, and other activities, people interacted. Those
interactions created social capital, expressed in more widely shared values, mutual
respect that transcended differences, and commitment to communal institutions.

Third, US citizens (any the citizens of other developed nations)
are often caught in the grip of two conflicting ideals. On the one hand, they
want to believe in individual rights and freedoms. They resent what they perceive
as growing government regulation of life and the taxes required to fund that
regulation.

On the other hand, most people want the assurances and
security that government regulation and services provide. Food, whether
purchased in a restaurant or store, should be safe, perhaps even nutritious, as
well as produced and packaged in a way that minimizes hazards to those
involved, respects the environment, etc. More generally, the warning of caveat emptor (buyer beware) seems less
reasonable when dealing with products that can endanger life and about which
few consumers will reasonably have any expertise. Similarly, most consumers,
employees, and citizens expect government to keep them safe from known
carcinogens, protect them from criminals, ensure transportation safety, and
provide other basic services.

Independently examining each element of government
regulation or service tends to result in an appreciation for the bulk of what government
provides, inherently creating a tension with the ideal of individual autonomy
and freedom. Few genuine libertarians (a position that approaches anarchism)
exist. In an era of heated rhetoric that clamors for our attention, it is
easier to trash government and community than it is to advocate more nuanced,
better-adjusted approaches to improving government regulation and services.

Fourth, contrary to widespread opinion, some community
values have actually improved significantly in the last fifty years. For
example, the US is a more just society that more fully (though still very
incompletely!) respects the rights of women, people of color, LGBT persons,
etc. Similarly, the US has made significant strides to provide a social safety
net. (For previous Ethical Musings' posts on this theme, cf. The
decline of violence, The
U.S. social safety net, Justice for
all, and Affirmative
action.)

Yet this improved justice has come at a price: we often opt
for easy over good, cheap over caring. Illustratively, the US has the largest percentage
of people in prison. Prisoners are disproportionately black men, reflecting in
some significant measure a legacy of racism, e.g., the penalties for using illegal
drugs that African-Americans tend to choose are far more severe than are
penalties for using illegal drugs preferred by Caucasians (cf. Ethical MusingsPrison
is not the answer) . Institutionalizing the mentally ill and disabled got
them off the street, but at a high cost and unnecessary infringement of their
freedom. The campaign to de-institutionalize them succeeded but failed to
achieve its other key element, providing the outpatient care and services these
persons need and deserve.

In other words, the assessment that Americans have an increased
cynicism toward communal institutions and a diminished sharing of foundational values
partially depends upon one's vantage point.

Finally, this is a transitional era. Old institutions are
dissolving. New institutions are in their early stages, still in gestation, or
not yet conceived. Humans are social animals. Transitions are inevitable but
invariably difficult. The question is not whether we will have community
institutions but the shape and character those community institutions will take.

For example, marriage is a basic (some might argue THE
basic) human institution. Marriage has gone through many changes: polygamy,
concubinage, arranged marriages, serial monogamy, and now an expanded
understanding to include same-sex couples. Some of the change is good. No
longer does secular law treat as the chattel of a man (religious laws,
regrettably, frequently still regard women as chattel or at least inferior to
men, though there are some hopeful signs that this is changing). Furthermore, secular
law imposes safeguards on children's welfare, criminalizing abuse, child labor,
neglect, etc. These are good changes (read some of Charles' Dickens stories if
you think otherwise).

Some change has resulted in unintended negative
consequences, e.g., the good of divorce that frees women from marriages that
are empty, unfulfilling, or abusive has created a problem of fathers seeking to
evade their parental responsibilities. Single parents, especially if a woman,
are more likely to be poor; divorce can be harder on children than is a
loveless marriage, raising questions about the extent to which society should
reasonably expect parents to sacrifice personal happiness for the well-being of
children.

Twitterized communications and a 24/7 news cycle favor
polarization rather than the discussion of complex problems, slowing progress
toward the compromises that new solutions entail. This polarization is evident
in the federal government's inability to deal with core issues, e.g., the
federal budget and presidential appointments.

Nevertheless, I am optimistic about the future. Our shared
values are in flux, yet society still exhibits cohesion, perhaps more than it
did in the 1970s and certainly more than it did in the 1860s. Our institutions
are also in flux, but new ones will emerge because we, like all humans, are
social animals and require communal institutions to survive.